0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
.. given your reaction, part 1 of my thought experiment has been an astounding success! You are now thinking in terms of time periods being extended or decreased, instead of the distance or lengths being stretched, or contracted.
'time period' thinking:Light waves (the change in length being a change in time period caused by travelling through changes in rates of time, or caused by the rate of time of the emitting source)
under the remit of current physics:Michelson Morley - that under the remit of the constant speed of light that the arm that is inline motion has contracted.
Light waves - under the remit of current physics:that the length, ie: distance of a wavelength contracts or dilates.
We can now go back and look at the mechanics of part 1 of the thought experiment ...
Since energy is the source of gravity
Quote from: timey on 03/12/2016 14:47:40.. given your reaction, part 1 of my thought experiment has been an astounding success! You are now thinking in terms of time periods being extended or decreased, instead of the distance or lengths being stretched, or contracted.Not so, this has always been part of my thinking because the 2 are inseparable. If you look at my simplified examples in the other threads you will see this.There is little point looking at just one or the other, but what is important is to identify points of simultaneity.I'm not going to comment on LIGO because there is more going on there than the simplified press releases.Quote from: timey on 03/12/2016 14:47:40'time period' thinking:Light waves (the change in length being a change in time period caused by travelling through changes in rates of time, or caused by the rate of time of the emitting source)These words are similar to ones I would use to describe current theory except I would use the words “the measured change in length being caused by the difference between the 'rate of time' of the locations of the emitting source and detector.”Quote from: timey on 03/12/2016 14:47:40under the remit of current physics:Michelson Morley - that under the remit of the constant speed of light that the arm that is inline motion has contracted.Also a change of time, both effects have been observed. As I said you can't separate them.Quote from: timey on 03/12/2016 14:47:40Light waves - under the remit of current physics:that the length, ie: distance of a wavelength contracts or dilates.Don't understand this reference. The only way a wavelength can change is if there is a change in the distance between wave peaks.Quote from: timey on 03/12/2016 14:47:40We can now go back and look at the mechanics of part 1 of the thought experiment ...I really don't think it is going to do any good, you and I are clearly not viewing this in the same way.I would prefer to set up a description, as I did earlier, of how time and distance actually change together. Best you carry on and maybe your ideas will become clearer.
Quote from: alancalverd on 03/12/2016 08:02:27Trumpoid: Quote...we can see that Alan has spelled out the correlation between relativistic mass and gravity potential...Quote But it was in fact I who mentioned relativistic mass,Light propagates according to the Maxwell equations, which make no mention of M, G, m or g. If Maxwell doesn't predict a cyclic universe, so what? It's arguable that Newton does. If there is a correlation between -GM/r (the property of a massive attractor) and E/c^2 (the property of a massless photon) perhaps you would be good enough to demonstrate it, instead of trumping it as a fact.Since energy is the source of gravity and it is thought that light may have a gravitational field we can substitute -GE/c^2r. However this still has nothing to do with the frequency shift of light.
Trumpoid: Quote...we can see that Alan has spelled out the correlation between relativistic mass and gravity potential...Quote But it was in fact I who mentioned relativistic mass,Light propagates according to the Maxwell equations, which make no mention of M, G, m or g. If Maxwell doesn't predict a cyclic universe, so what? It's arguable that Newton does. If there is a correlation between -GM/r (the property of a massive attractor) and E/c^2 (the property of a massless photon) perhaps you would be good enough to demonstrate it, instead of trumping it as a fact.
...we can see that Alan has spelled out the correlation between relativistic mass and gravity potential...
But it was in fact I who mentioned relativistic mass,
Quote from: jeffreyH on 03/12/2016 10:22:00Since energy is the source of gravity Now that's news to me. Can you elaborate or provide a reference?
Look Colin. How many times do I have to say: "I am adding a contra directional gravitational time dilation to the universe."
Do you understand the implications of adding a contra directional gravitational time dilation to the universe? ie: can you visualise what the results of adding this phenomenon will be?
...your comments on how you want me to describe distance and length contraction/dilation as inseparable from time contraction/dilation .....
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-coldBut then it is stretching things a bit.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 03/12/2016 23:17:06https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-coldBut then it is stretching things a bit.More than a stretch, almost a trump. Adding kinetic energy increases mass, but as far as we know it is mass that causes gravity. At absolute zero, massive objects still attract each other, so it is not true to say that energy causes gravity.
Yes, a change in wavelength incorporates a changes between peaks, but the given explanation for this change between peaks does not HAVE to be distance related. It is equally possible for this change between wave peaks to be TIME PERIOD related. ie: it takes a longer or shorter period of time to complete the same distance.
Quote from: timey on 04/12/2016 01:10:56Yes, a change in wavelength incorporates a changes between peaks, but the given explanation for this change between peaks does not HAVE to be distance related. It is equally possible for this change between wave peaks to be TIME PERIOD related. ie: it takes a longer or shorter period of time to complete the same distance.But since c = fL and c is constant, if you change f you will change L by the exact reciprocal.
I am simply describing how holding the duration of 1 length of second constant to measure a different length of second will result in a different distance being travelled...can you please explain why this poses a problem to you?
then if you subsequently say that L/f = variable second
Yup - and then if you subsequently say that L/f = variable second and state c = 299 792 458 metres per variable second, then L will remain constant.